Printable View
We're 12th in average and 11th in runs scored in SEC games only. Maybe what we're doing isnt ****ing working that well? Looks like we need to lay down a few more bunts. (And I hate bunting- but sometimes you just have to suck it up and do it)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
We're also 2nd in the SEC in grounding into double plays btw
If C. James doesn?t figure out how to hit a breaking ball when he knows its coming, he may as well come out of the lineup or at the very least move down to no. 9. He won?t see another fastball the rest of the year. How we have won as much as we have this year is amazing.
Yeah, he got found out. From Alex Bergman 2.0 to Reid Humphries 2.0 in 10 daysQuote:
Originally Posted by AlSwearengen
Maybe Shotgun can tell us what Geautraux can do with the situation. Lots of guys struggle with Vandy though, maybe it’s about quality opposition and he did not become a terrible hitter overnight.
He didn't just get found out. He's been thrown a huge percentage of breaking balls all year. Last week wasn't some newfound realization.like you said, it's just that vandy has the best two college rh starters w two legit breaking ball guys out of the pen. He's gonna keep getting seeing them and that's not new. He's ahead of hunter renfroe at the same stage (without the huge power) but he's not a nine hole guy like some have stated. That's absurdQuote:
Originally Posted by The Federalist Engineer
I might get roasted but James reminds me a little bit of Rooker. Kind of raw, thin coming out of high school but with a lot of projectability. I have no idea if James is the student of the game that Rooker was late in his career here which is why he became a Triple Crown guy but I do think James will eventually be an All-SEC guy. And with guys like Kellum Clark, Cole Slater, Hunter Hines, and etc. coming in it makes sense to me to move him to the OF next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homedawg
I think people underestimate what Cann did for Rooker. Rooker had the potential in 2016, but what Cann did with him from November through the next year was absolutely remarkable. Completely changed his approach at the plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
I thought that was still geautraux or however you spell his name when Cann was here?Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve
Lots of great points and discussion in this thread. I'm feeling pretty old for the first time, bc I see that my mind wants to go to the old school way of building a lineup, instead of the new school analytics way of building one. When these analytics guys show why we should have our best guys hitting top 3 it makes sense, so I'll admit my previous posts probably aren't the best lineup approaches....however, I wonder if you sprinkled in some of your lesser bats among the best throughout the lineup, if it would avoid having such a fall off towards the end, resulting in a better all around lineup of production? Can you analytics guys tell me if that makes any sense, or if I'm way off base with that thinking?
In other words, is it better to rely almost solely on the top of your order for runs, or would spreading the wealth help to take advantage of the other few hits per game by the lesser players, rather than them having nobody to drive them in around them, thus potentially resulting in a more productive overall lineup? Again, just curious.
LOL, don't feel by yourself CD! I'm 56 and played or coached most of my life. I was a stat junkie even as kid pouring over the box scores in the paper and the stat book from my games. Back in the late 70's I started noticing the trend of those 1,2,3 hitters(but especially 1-2) always seemed to come up late in the game with the game on the line(doesn't matter what level of baseball, all the same). And those 3 hitters always seemed to get 1 extra ab a game and that adds up big time over the course of a season. So I decided whenever I started coaching I would construct my lineup that way and it worked really well. I'm not any kind of genius or anything, just a young kid who was a baseball stats junkie. Now I don't understand all these new fangled metrics and all and I still believe a coach should make decisions in game based on what is happening in that particular game. Stats are very valuable but shouldn't be used to make every decsion. JMO from an old baseball guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
It's pretty simple - give your best hitters the most at-bats.
Rowdey and Tanner Allen are the best two hitters. 1-2
Kam and Logan are the next best hitters - 3-4
Luke and Dubrule are the next best hitters - 5-6
Depending on matchups Hatcher/Cumbest/Skinner/Forsythe/Clark are the last best hitters 7-9
Lemonis is going to rely on the top of his order to score our runs for 2 reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
1. He plays for the "big inning" rather than trying to squeeze out a run here and there. If we have a big inning and put up 4 runs in the bottom of the first, then with our pitching staff, it'll be enough to beat most teams. Analytics point towards having more success going for the big inning.
2. The top of your order sees more at-bats, so you want those hitters to be your best.
Doesn't seem that simple. If you have 2 good hitters and they both single every time they get up in a season, but there is nobody behind them to drive them in, you would score zero runs for the year. Obviously I'm kidding to an extent, but you get what I'm saying. Not saying any other way is the "right" way, bc your point makes sense...but if you only have one spot in your order that poses any threat, it would seem that would cause a different set of issues over the course of a game/season. I'd still lean the way you're saying, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it out. Different ways to skin a cat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex54
Another thing....I know a lot of people rip Corbin for putting a pitcher in his DH spot and then playing matchups when the spot comes up in the order, but why would you not do that? Seems like that way of thinking falls perfectly in line with the analytics way of managing the game/team.
Makes me feel better, ha. Good thinking tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Makes sense. And I agree with it. Just playing devil's advocate and trying to understand the entire analytics picture I guess, and trying to add to discussion hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by KOdawg1
Good question Cadaver. The simple answer is if you have average to great bats through most of your order you can hide 1-2 weak hitters. Any more than that though you really have to stack your line up and play match up even more. Even with that, your 3 top hitters should still be 1-3 in the lineup unless none of them can give you a lead off type of production in the analytics. Doesn’t have to a base stealer but a smart base runner, someone who can work the counts, has splits that are somewhat even (it may have to be 2 guys with splits that are more lopsided) and get on base with walks as well as being a good hitter. Then you may have to find someone that is outside of your top 3 hitters to fill the lead off role.
But trying to hide Hatcher, Skinner, and Debrule, who are all also LH bats, man I think over the course of a season that will limit rallies and runs more than those dead innings that they incur. When you have a limited offense, stacking 1, 2, 3, works better throughout a season and gives you your best chance to optimize run production. The stronger your line up is overall, the more you can lean toward a more traditional line-up but I think the numbers are proving more and more that your 2 hole hitter is your 3 hole traditional hitter in today’s game. Freddie Freeman just won MVP hitting a lot from the 2 hole last year.
It's no longer legal to do what corbin did w his dh....Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
Jake didn't get here until 2018. It was Cann, Henderson, Mike Brown, and Will Coggin here in 2017.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
Good breakdown. Makes senseQuote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
Oh really? Didn't know thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Homedawg
This randomly came up in tball. We were playing a league that treated an inning as 5 runs or 3 outs, which ever comes first. Basically as long as you don't hit it directly to the pitcher, 2nd baseman, or 1st baseman, you are safe. Getting out of even one inning without letting the other team score five wins gave you a good chance of winning. Getting out of two innings without letting the other team score five wins guaranteed a win except for against maybe two teams, in which case it's maybe 50/50 whether you'd win with that. The other coaches basically did the line-up 1-9, best to worst hitters (really 1-11 or 1-12 depending on how many showed up because everybody just batted through, regardless of who was in the field), with some adjustment in the first 5 to match traditional roles. When I explained to them that it was stupid to put our three most likely outs together and virtually guarantee that we wouldn't max out one inning, it was deer in the headlights. Could not comprehend that when all twelve people were there, we had enough people guaranteed to get on base that we could space out our 3 bad hitters enough to guarantee three of them didn't come up in the same inning before we reached five runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
And the opposite applies if you are not a good team. If you have too many outs in the lineup to space them out, you need to bunch your hits together to get people around the bases, and put them at the front of the lineup to maximize their number of at bats.